Vote for Sustrans?

[jonesy]

the real problem is this: segregation makes cycling another, subsidiary problem instead of part of the answer. The correct way to rid our streets of congestion, reduce road deaths, reduce traffic generated fumes and noise is to reconfigure them as social spaces, in which pedestrians, cyclists (including cycle cabs), buses, delivery vehicles get people and goods around. It works when it's tried - and it's good for business. The correct response to congestion is to reduce trip generation.
...

Agreed- and of course this approach is basically what you get if you follow the Hierarchy of Measures set out in national cycling infrastructure guidance, as advocated by the National Cycling Strategy (1996- 2005. RIP), now quietly buried along with any national targets for increasing cycling...

(Edit- for readers not familiar with it, there's an explanation of the Hierarchy on CTC website)

I have two main concerns about the NCN. The first is that, as a flagship national project, it should have been an exemplar of best practice. Instead, far too much of it sets a very low benchmark for future infrastructure.

My second concern is that a lot of resources were put into creating routes in locations where it was not realistic ever to expect significant numbers of users. Cycling is primarily a short distance, local mode of transport and spending lots of money and effort on remote routes that don't serve local journeys has certainly diverted a number of LAs away from schemes that would have benefited a far greater number of users. That said, in the last couple of years Sustrans does seem to have given far more priority to local trips in built up areas, which is to be welcomed.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

There's nothing wrong with off-road trails for leisure riding, MTB, etc, it's the emphasis on the need for a National Cycle Network that is pointless and bad for cycling. For going from A to B we already have the perfect cycle network with all the routes needed. They are called roads.


You lot seem to feel that Sustrans promotes cycling. I don't think it does anything to increase cycling levels across the whole of the UK.

Indeed not. Sustrans, if it promotes anything, promotes the image of cycling as a leisure activity. Now, there's nothing wrong with that, but when I cycle I ride to get from A to B, not to arse about looking at the scenery and avoiding the traffic. I agree with Wafflycat, Mikey, Chuffy and others - as far as I can see, Sustrans has nothing to do with sustainability or transport and promulgates the idea that bikes should not be on the road. And I think this is the start of a very slippery slope indeed.

 

[Brock]

Well, having looked further into the actual projects that Connect2 are proposing, I shall definitely be voting for it. They'll be extending two wonderful and well used traffic free routes locally, so it will benefit me directly. I spend all week commuting to work on direct roads with the traffic and love every minute of it, at the weekend it's nice to do something different.

I absolutely don't believe such routes are in danger of marginalising and hiding cyclists away. And I totally believe that such routes hugely encourage people to start cycling when, if there were no local traffic free routes, people simply wouldn't consider even trying it. And whether this goes against Waffly's pages of dusty of old statistics or BentMikey's rather narrow elitist London based view doesn't matter, it's fact. I talk to so many non-cyclists who claim they'd love to use a bike to get around, but they're worried about the traffic, no amount of telling them it's actually safer than they think will persuade them to try, but if they start to really enjoy their leisure cycling, they will certainly start to brave quieter roads and hopefully with time and experience, much more.

I think one of the problems with this discussion is people's experience of NCN routes.
What I find here is that the 'stupid little pointless blue signs' direct cyclists beautifully through the maze of leafy lanes which are cycled frequently by pootlers and serious lycra clad racers alike. I don't believe a huge amount of money has been 'wasted' here, but the benefits for all local cyclists are huge. Linking towns in a way that avoids the dual carriageways, does benefit cyclists wishing to make real journeys.

In my view it's not about segregating cyclists, it's about increasing options for the finest form of transport there is.

 

[BentMikey]

You still haven't explained how more facilities encourages more cycling, when research clearly shows it doesn't.

 

[wafflycat]

I don't require an NCN to avoid dual carriageways. Back in the days when I went to school, in geography lessons I was taught how to read a map.

 

[summerdays]

Well my husband wouldn't be doing his once a week cycle if he had to cycle on the ring road around Bristol, he just isn't ready to do dual carriage way and multi-lane roundabouts, the cycle path runs nearby but without the fumes and speed (at times), very few pedestrians. There are lots of people out there like him, surely we want to encourage them. I have also shown him my copy of cycle-craft.

Sustrans are not the answer to the problem but can they not be a PART of the solution.

To be honest I haven't got the foggest how to separate people from their love affair with cars, some folk in my close never walk past my house (on the edge of the close), as they drive everywhere including their kids to school which is 5 mins by bike (2 if I'm on my own). In fact thinking about my close - there is one other cyclist, a couple who take their dog for a walk, and one man who does walk to get the paper etc, all the other 7 households do not walk AT ALL (sorry I forgot they walk to their garage). How the govenment changes that attitude I have no idea.

 

[mickle]

Not sure I can add anything significant to this excellent discussion but my own experience of ten years commuting 12 miles a day up and down the Bristol to Bath.

Its a very fine facility, on the few occasions I got bored of it and commuted on the road, I gave up and returned to the B2B. Its horrible out in the traffic on that side of town. I always wondered if removing so many cyclists from that length of road (Staple Hill down through Fishponds) had any effect on motorists behavour. I am a very confident cyclist, commuted in London for ten years so its not a lack of skills that led me to take the quiet option but that cycle path has removed me and hundreds others like me from that stretch of road.
If you go across town and watch the hundreds of cyclists traveling up and down the Gloucester rd (in the absence of a Sustrans alternative), there are so many of them (us!) that motorists cannot help but be aware of them.

Im with Wafflycat.

 

[summerdays]

As a Gloucester Road cyclist you have to be confident or it is a scarey place ... tried to get hubby to cycle into town (down the Gl Rd) to an optitions appointment, and he wouldn't do it, even with me suggesting a back route way to get him down to the bus lane bit.

 

[User482]

Liking sustrans routes and wanting safer on-road facilities are not mutually exclusive. I think we have to accept that sustrans routes are not primarily aimed at the likes of us - we're confident about using main roads etc. Looking at the cyclists on the Bristol-Bath path - they're families with kids, and they are not going to want to mix it up with the traffic through the middle of Bristol.

I've also had great holidays on the NCNs - C2C, Devon C2C and Pennine cycleway. Sure, some aspects could be better but to dismiss the whole project because of a few muddy paths is ridiculous.

I make a regular donation to them and shall be voting for them.

 

[Tim Bennet.]

If Sustrans routes are not aimed at 'us' they should then be very clear who they are aimed at. My only beef with them is that they claim they are working for all cyclists and therefore their ideas of the way forward have come to dominate cycling provision. If they said they are working for newbies, for the timid and inept, then everyone would be aware how their work fits in with the broader cycling world.

We have a name for traffic free cycling routes; they are called bridleways. (Ignoring the joint horse issue for the moment) All you need is a grading system so riders can differentiate grade 1 'bridleways' (suitable for 23c tyres) from Grade 2 (suitable for tourers and hybrids) from Grade 3 and on to Grade 4 which are best suited to real mountain bikes. Then if you saw a sign that said 'Bike Route to Alston, Grade 4' you would know it was a different proposition than 'Bike Route to Glasson Dock, Grade 1'. But on here we constantly have questions about whether such and such a route is suitable for road bikes or not. What sort of provision is it if cyclists can't even work out if it is for them?

Having both cyclists and their needs categorised makes it very easy to then communicate our diversity to others. It would then explain why we on one hand we want old railway lines covered in hardcore but on the other hand hate it when good Grade 4 mountainbike routes in the Dales are submerged beneath the same crap to make them a 'cycle route'. They were a cycle route anyway, just not for crap cyclists.

If Sustrans have their way, all cycling will be on sit up and beg 26 inch hybrids on rolled hardcore tracks wondering around in the middle of nowhere. That might suit and please a lot of people but not everyone. The car world understands they have differing needs at differing times which are met by having a range of roads from country lanes to motorways. They would certainly understand that cycling is the same. If only we highlighted this diversity instead of pretending that all cyclists and all their needs are the same.

 

[Cab]

I've occasionally been stopped by Sustrans people, waiting on sunny days canvassing support in town at a bridge where cyclists are meant to dismount to cross the Cam. Its a good spot for them, you get cyclists on foot to canvass to. And I think these people are genuine, they believe in their organisation. But I don't agree with what they're putting forward.

None of my regular commuting has, at any time, been made any better by the provision of off-road cycle paths. I can think of several routes that could do with off-road provision (anywhere thats dual carriageway or motorway!), but Sustrans don't seem to be providing such routes.

When I go out to ride for fun or to get where I need to be, I want a direct route with a good surface connecting point A and point B. I don't mind meandering a bit, but I don't want to have to make a trip to get to the route and then another trip from the route to where I need to be. I don't want to take a detour to go on to a surface that isn't as good as the road anyway.

So Sustrans aren't offering me what I want. Leaving the debate about whether their goals are bad for cycling aside (I'll come back to that later if I can be bothered), they're just not an organisation I want to be associated with because their priorities and mine are very different.

 

[John the Monkey]

I like the idea of grading the routes (with maybe a grade for dry conditions and one for wet). The French do a similar thing with their VTT system of signage (encountered this in Normandy), with different colours for different grades of route. The system is explained in a little leaflet available at tourist information centres (and generally posted on the local towns' community noticeboard).

I also agree that categorisation of the schemes and who they're aimed at would be a very good idea indeed.

 

[User482]

I've occasionally been stopped by Sustrans people, waiting on sunny days canvassing support in town at a bridge where cyclists are meant to dismount to cross the Cam. Its a good spot for them, you get cyclists on foot to canvass to. And I think these people are genuine, they believe in their organisation. But I don't agree with what they're putting forward.

None of my regular commuting has, at any time, been made any better by the provision of off-road cycle paths. I can think of several routes that could do with off-road provision (anywhere thats dual carriageway or motorway!), but Sustrans don't seem to be providing such routes.

When I go out to ride for fun or to get where I need to be, I want a direct route with a good surface connecting point A and point B. I don't mind meandering a bit, but I don't want to have to make a trip to get to the route and then another trip from the route to where I need to be. I don't want to take a detour to go on to a surface that isn't as good as the road anyway.

So Sustrans aren't offering me what I want. Leaving the debate about whether their goals are bad for cycling aside (I'll come back to that later if I can be bothered), they're just not an organisation I want to be associated with because their priorities and mine are very different.

...whereas they have directly made my commute better as they provide a well-surfaced, traffic free path that goes from town to my work.

 

[Stick on a Giant]

I think Sustrans need to be renamed. What they do is fine for what it is, but for me, that isn't sustainable transport. There's nothing wrong with encouraging people out onto cinder tracks at the weekend, but let's not pretend it's the same thing as getting people to use bikes rather than cars as a means of transport.

Unfortunately Sustrans seems to have monopolised the 'representing cyclists' label when it comes to getting money for cycling routes when they're not actually helping those likely to use bikes as commuting machines.

There's nothing wrong with segregated cycle lanes, the problem for me lies in the lack of priority they are given. If they had priority over every driveway and minor lane, and didn't involve bumping up and down kerbs every 10 yards, I might use them.

May we should have encouraged the CTC to put a bid in?

 

[Cab]

...whereas they have directly made my commute better as they provide a well-surfaced, traffic free path that goes from town to my work.

If that was the norm, I'd be all in favour of the organisation.